User talk:Credo123

Tags
Tags should not be removed until the issue is resolved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

NPA
Please note accusing users of vandalism without very good reason (yes that includes calling their edits vandalism) violates wp:npa. I feel reading WP:NOTDUMB might be of some value.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Response: This note is irrelevant and inapplicable, as I never accused anyone of "vandalism." There were inaccuracies in prior edits that needed to be corrected. In fact, the previous edits showed only one (negative) side of the story while leaving out key context. These biographies should be unbiased and objective, and not attempt to only portray individuals in a negative light.
 * [ "possible BLP issue or vandalism", thus you imply the edit was vandalism. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, come on man. That's the automatic tag added by some bot. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but then they should take more care.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that bot is not always very sharp. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What I mean is I take care when using bots so as not undo for the wrong reason (for example). But then I tend to not use bots to just do that kind of edit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having said that, Credo123, you should REALLY provide proper edit summaries, and better sourcing. Don't tell me you were citing Facebook in one of your edits. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not pick up on that, but then they have removed the primary source tag.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)R

Response: Did you look at the Facebook link? It was advertising the speaking engagement in Crookston. Facebook is used to advertise events. It is a perfectly acceptable source in this case, since the statement was about his speaking engagement in Crookston. Why would you remove the segment on Crookston unless you are willfully trying to make Michael Voris look bad? It's clear from your comments that you are trying to smear Voris as "right-wing" "fringe" rather than presenting a balanced, unbiased, objective biography of someone whose views you may disagree with. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia and is an abuse of editing privileges.
 * Facebook is not generally an RS (see wp:primary). I also would suggest you do not make PA#s against admins.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't explained why you would remove a segment on the Crookston diocese controversy. It can't be because a Facebook post was cited.
 * Why not? If something is unsourced or badly sourced it can be removed (please read WP:ONUS).Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What specifically was "badly sourced" about that segment, other than your claim about the Facebook citation? Everything relied on objective media sources, including official statements from the diocese, the metropolitan archbishop and other press.
 * Its called policy, we have rule regarding sources, one is wp:rs, another (and I am sure I have already made you aware of this) is wp:primary. All content must abide by our polices or it can be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

SPA
I also feel you need to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

BLP
You need to read wp:v, a source has to explicitly say something, it is does not say (for example) homosexual neither can we. This violated both wp:blp and wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Michael Voris, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do NOT lard BLP articles with promotional and poorly verified trivia. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I did not use Wikipedia for "soapboxing, promotion or advertising." I provided facts about significant events that took place involving Voris - and you deleted them, calling him "lunatic," "fringe" and "right-wing." You're a biased admin who's happy to silence dissenting viewpoints.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You have now breached wp:RR and its an admin. I would be very surprised to not see a block.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Materialscientist (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says Wikipedia has turned into a leftist cesspool, and has lost its original neutrality. That's been utterly clear in the edits and deletions made to my revisions attempting to provide a more balanced picture of Voris. Anything that could possibly present him in a fair light was immediately deleted, with the bogus claim that it was "badly sourced" - even though my sources went directly to secular media, a state grand jury report and diocesan statements. Wikipedia is now a joke run by biased "cancel culture" administrators. (BTW - the official Michael Voris bio page makes a note of Wikipedia's bias. )

Credo123 I suggest you withdraw this appeal, actually read what you are supposed to say and then explain how YOU (and only you) did not breach policy or will not do so again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Credo123, I am indeed an administrator here, which means I probably know a bit about what's going on--but note that an uninvolved admin placed the block. I invoke WP:CRYBLP, since my reverts of your edits are in congruence with our policy on Biographies of Living People. I will continue cleaning the article of promotional and BLP-violating content. It's pretty clear what you are doing: you are including every little bit of "controversy" (and none of your controversies are real controversies, because there are no reliable sources) in order to generate content for this guy, whose article should probably be redirected to the article for his website--if that is even notable. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

COI
Do you have a wp:coi with "Michael"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)